Key facts
- Federal prosecutors declined to confirm if they obtained Don Lemon's phone records via an administrative summons.
Federal prosecutors declined to confirm if they obtained Don Lemon's phone records using an administrative summons, raising concerns about the government's use of a controversial law to gather information in a civil rights case.
The case raises significant concerns about government overreach and the potential for surveillance of journalists and activists using obscure legal statutes, potentially infringing on Fourth Amendment privacy rights.
Federal prosecutors have refused to confirm whether they secretly obtained phone records for journalist Don Lemon using an administrative summons, a move his lawyers argue is an abuse of a controversial legal authority. The summons, issued by the Department of Homeland Security under 19 USC 1509, sought Lemon's phone records between December 19 and January 20. This administrative summons is distinct from a typical grand jury subpoena or court-approved search warrant.
Experts and the defendants' legal team contend that the government is misusing this law, originally intended for customs issues, to gather information in an unrelated domestic criminal investigation. Lemon and dozens of others face charges related to civil rights crimes stemming from a protest at a St. Paul church. His lawyers stated that the government's response to their inquiries about the summons has been non-existent, leaving them uncertain if Verizon complied with the request.
This tactic is particularly alarming as a magistrate judge had previously rejected separate government efforts to obtain YouTube records for Lemon and another journalist, Georgia Fort, citing special protections for reporters. Fort's lawyers also expressed shock at the government obtaining her records without notification or opportunity to contest. In a joint filing, defendants argued that the government has filed over 90 administrative summonses in the case for various records, exceeding its legal authority and potentially constituting "outrageous Government conduct."
Prosecutors, however, defend their use of the 1509 summons, asserting it applies to any law enforced by DHS, which absorbed the U.S. Customs Service. They argue that because the protesters targeted an ICE official who was also a pastor, a potential crime against a DHS official occurred, justifying the summons. The defense lawyers reject this, stating the reorganization did not expand the scope of the authority, only who could exercise it.